Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Horn, R.E. (1999). Information design: Emergence of a new profession.
In R. Jacobson (Ed.), _Information design_ (p. 15-33). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
A historical perspective of the emerging profession of information
design including a discussion of the various professions in which
information design is performed, the tensions between those
professions and between the profession at large and the uninitiated.
Predicts a future wherein there is an increased measure of
professional behavior, including greater training and greater
appreciation of research underpinning the field. It is important to
note that in this context information design is strongly associated
with what is frequently called graphic design; that is, the
organization of information in a graphical fashion to more effectively
convey information.
-=-=-
In the context of information architecture or information management I
want to aggressively dispute the following truism of the status quo:
In any field of human endeavor there is a process of, first,
specialization and, then, increasing professionalization.
I don't dispute that it is true. I dispute that it is a good thing. A
significant promise of information tools has been the placement of choice
and power into the hands of individuals. Professionalism is nice word
for segregation. While it is true that professional societies and
professional certifications exist to delineate standards of quality
and safety then also exist to delineate the lines between those people
who can know and those people who cannot; those people who are the
priests and those who are the laity.
We don't need more of that in this world.
Information designers, as cast by Horn, are those people who provide
an interpretive conduit for information. They take the complex and
give it form which they believe simple enough to be digested by some
audience categorized as the uninformed.
It is true that a well intended information designer can give concrete
form to the abstract, allowing people to see something they could not
see before. We have all experience that moment of recognition when
seeing something in a light we were unable to cast ourselves. Instead
of encouraging the massification of the ability to shine new light in
a group of professions, people with skills should be sharing them,
losing the information of how they do it onto everyone so they can do
it themselves.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (2000). Chapter 3: Home alone. In _The social
life of information_ (p. 63-89). Boston: Harvard University
Press.
A diagnosis of why working from home has not caught on as well as
predicted by futurists and technologists. The social networks that
surround any activity, including work, cannot be ignored. Communities
and peers provide intangible benefits that must be considered and
included in plans to migrate workers out of the standard office.
-=-=-
Two aspects of this chapter are disturbing:
- There is a presumption that the level of poor workmanship in
existing computer systems will remain. That for the foreseeable
future computers will need specialized knowledge to be "taken care
of".
- Migration of control of the computer to the individual is considered
an unfortunate displacement of responsibility.
In both cases a mistake is being made. If the computer is cast as
some kind of specialized super tool that needs to be coddled as a child
like a professional athlete it is misperceived. A computer is a tool.
It is supposed to perform tasks. It is supposed to perform them well.
When we have a hammer that does not work, we complain to the vendor
and buy another one. We don't blame ourselves or think it
inconsiderate. It is simply broken. Computers (actually the software
on them) as now sold are simply broken.
Maintaining a caste of computer experts who are to be responsible for
these tempestuous machines only reinforces their ability to be broken.
If control of the machines is migrated to individuals, if the computer
is popularized, it will become more and more a tool.
We see this migration in progress in the last twenty years. Someday
we'll be saying power to the people at last.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Suchman, L. (1987). Interactive Artifacts. In _Plans and Situated
Actions_ (p. 5-26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(Read for L592, Dillon)
Suggests computers as interactive artifacts, not things that are used,
by decoding the nature of interaction, how humans conclude they are
interacting, and what aspects of computers display interaction.
Computer appear to have intention. Two forms of intention are
discussed: intention from the designers standpoint (this tool was
built by someone with a purpose), intention from the computer itself
(this tool is trying to do something, it has a purpose).
-=-=-
The computer appears to be an intentional machine because it shares
some features with humans. According to Suchman
it is in part our inability to see inside each other's heads, our
mutual opacity, that makes intentional explanations so powerful in
the interpretation of human action...The overall behavior of the
computer is not describable, that is to say, with reference to any
of the simple local events that it comprises...To refer to the
behavior of the machine, then, one must speak of "its"
functionality. And once reified as an entity, the inclination to
ascribe actions to the entity rather than to the parts is
irresistible.
Humans have a way of communicating that allows them to stop in moments
of communicative confusion and say, "excuse, what are you getting at?"
Some computer designers believe that by developing this skill in
computers there will be a greater perception of intelligence in the
computer.
If it is opacity which inspires intentional explanations, then
increasing opportunities for explanation suggests an increase in
opacity. That is bad. If the computer were a partner in an interactive
dialog, if the computer were a partner with a shared knowledge and
language, it could be good. That is not the case. Intentional
explanations between humans works out because opacity exists with the
individual and there is a shared knowledge space existing outside the
two or more humans involved. That shared knowledge is what is used to
reach clarity. A computer is not a human, it is a tool. Clarity can be
reached in a much more direct fashion by exposing the tool, making it
clear in the first place.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
von Halle, B. (1996). Architecting in a virtual world. Database
Programming & Design (November 1996). Available at:
http://www.dbpd.com/vault/9611arch.htm
Comparison of traditional architect with the information architect to
highlight ways in which the profession can be clarified and
strengthened. The information architect needs legitimacy in the
enterprise where increasingly complex information environments are
making increased demands on information professionals. The role of the
information architect is to provie overarching structure and defintion
to information resources.
-=-=-
From an email to the 597 mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:30:52 -0500 (EST)
From: cdent@burningchrome.com
Cc: L597 <ejacob_597ia_fall01@majordomo.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: von Halle
There's another side of the coin: In many organizations the info or
systems architect is not a defined role and frequently is assigned
sort of absently or by accident. Many times a senior management
official becomes the architect by default and does not have the
training or experience to bridge the gap between the "customer" and
the engineers. Or worse disregards both (I've been in that situation
many times).
While I disagree with von Halle's rather simplistic and
over-structured approach to the classes of problems she discusses, I
do agree that formalizing the role of the information architect in an
enterprise setting is a valuable and necessary task, for the reasons
you state: the long view.
My disagreement is with the strict attachment to deliverables as a
concept. To me they imply too much of an end point to any project, cast
things into an inflexible time structure. There is no such thing as an
end point. Any investment in process automation is a long term commitment.
See
Johnson, B. & Woolfolk, W. (1999). Counterintuitive Management of
Information Technology. _Business Horizons, 42_(2). 29-37.
(it's available in full text on EBSCO)
for a more maintenance oriented approach to informations systems
management. It also happens to be a very good read if you need a
refreshing perspective.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, stephen douglas rice wrote:
> An aspect of the von Halle article that I found interesting was the
> discussion of the jurisdiction of the architect and the engineer. The
> article notes that in traditional architecture, the architect has the
> final jurisdiction. No one is to change the design except the architect.
>
> Looking back on projects I have been involved with, engineers have made
> decisions without consulting the 'architect'. These decisions were
> usually made because of system constraints but they did have impact on the
> final product. I don't think the engineers are good at looking forward to
> the final product and instead look at the immediate problem they are faced
> with.
>
> I think it will take a major shift in thinking to get the engineers to
> request approval for changes and recognize the impact of their decisions
> on the final product.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Uncle Netword. (Accessed 20001.09.10). Information architecture.
Available at: http://uncle-netword.com/articles/writeweb3.html
An overview, with references to addtional resources, of some
fundamental principles of information architecture for web sites. A
site that is considered well designed is unified in the way that is
applies the principles, including four cornerstones of information
design: organization, presentation navigation and preparedness for
change.
-=-=-
A fine collection of introductory references to background information
on web site architecture but somewhat lacking: the article does not
cite enough references to traditional library science material.
Without that historical context the nature of the web as something
"extra-special" is exaggerated. It is important to realize that a web
site is a manifestation of a general class: an information resource.
There are general principles that apply to books, libraries, web
sites, newspaper archives which can and should be reviewed.
Uncle Networld is _not_ a particularly heinous example of this
problem. They are simply doing what everyone else does: getting on the
hype bubble. Introducing new technology does not change the
fundamental act being performed. What it changes, and what it can
change radically if people remember to keep things in perspective, are
the available tools for making the fudamental act effective.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Referring to:
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (2000). Chapter 3: Home alone. In _The social
life of information_ (p. 63-89). Boston: Harvard University
Press.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:39:22 -0500 (EST)
From: cdent@burningchrome.com
To: ejacob_597ia_fall01@indiana.edu
Subject: Home Alone with Brown and Duguid
I have the following written down on my copy of the "Home Alone"
chapter. It was written before I read the rest of the chapter. I was
having a bit of a fit:
What does this diary tell me? Tells me that efforts to hide
complexity of computer results in instability and stupidity. Don't
shoot for the common denominator. Instead acknowledge complexity
and enhance opportunities for learning, which fills in the blanks in
the complexity, provides context, solidifies foundations.
In other words, the author of the diary would have had a better
experience if the ISP had been able (as partially requested) to
provide a document which explained, briefly, the basic information
required to set up dial up networking on the computer and provided a
bit of context on what was being done. Yes, the "user" would have
needed to make an initial time investment setting up the machine, but
from my perspective that time investment would have been worth it,
especially considering this person required several days to get going.
Such a document would explain the notion of two computers connecting
(a PPP network), the need for authentication (why there is a username
and password and what they are), the need for DNS (these days this
could be left out since that information can be passed automagically
in many cases) and give a little context about what could be expected
once connected.
In the end the user would then realize that what they are sitting at
is a computer, a tool which they can use to do "stuff", instead of a
magic box which does stuff. Note the actors there.
Agree? Disagree?
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Norman, D. (1999). Chapter 9: Soft and hard technology (p. 221-242).
In _Things that make us smart_. Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Norman distinguishes between hard and soft technologies. Hard
technologies are technologies where the human must conform to the
rules of the technology. Soft technology is more flexible and
adaptive. This is a nice idea for augmenting technologies but Norman
is being a bit too general (or perhaps I'm being a bit too hard (in
the technology sense) on him).
Perspective lead to understanding and ideas of how things can be used
so it is important to have perspectives that are both fulfilling and
accurate. Technology cannot be soft. It is, by its very nature hard,
it is rule driven, exacting, not very adaptable. Technology
implementations, though, can be soft. If we keep this distinction in
mind and make it clear to everyone invovled then how we develop
technology can proceed more effectively. When designing technology if
we understand that we are working with hard building blocks that can
be arranged (by us) in different ways we are able to manipulate the
technology more effectively.
Consider this little bit of speculation about the future:
http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/slis/l505/papers/slisessay9.htm
Because we are experts at adapting our language we need to expose the
language of the computer, both programmatically and physically, then
we can manipulate it. That's the power of language: persuasion.
Norman solidifies my point about the distinction between hard and soft
implementations when talking about the Rabbit software. He
acknowledges that the internal representation that Rabbit uses is
hard, as it has to be. It is the surface representation which is, to
him, soft. It isn't really soft, it just appears that way.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Norman, D. (1999). Chapter 10: Technology is not neutral (p. 243-253).
In _Things that make us smart_. Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Well, duh.
Technology, by necessity, is the expression of the designers (see
Suchman for more). It is the designers of the technology that are not
neutral.
Norman favors technology where people are in control, yet his examples
are of technology that is very old and has had a chance to mature and
enter into our common consciousness. Would you care to speculate if
people felt paper or print were neutral when it first came about?
Paper is a powerful tool because it is a compositional medium where we
can create and manipulate representations. Computers are compositional
medium of the same type where we haven't yet figured out what
representations work best. Evolution will help us here but evolution
takes time. As we work with computers to manipulate representations
we will discover those that work best. These will be honed, adapted,
mutated, developed, accepted and rejected over time.
A primary problem with technology is the way in which is drives people
to hurry. Norman speaks forever about the need for reflection: he
needs to pause and reflect about birth, time and growth.
Everything's going to be fine. We'll learn, that's what we do.
Back to the Index